Friday, December 23, 2011

BREAKING LEAK - BREAKING LEAK
The Islamic regime of Iran has set into escalated motion a project to acquire/coerce then infiltrate some 200,000 people within family groups and use religious persecution as their excuse as their entry into the West - partly Europe as a stepping stone then the USA and as much as possible directly into the USA.

The central members of the family units will be existing or still in training Intelligence agents of the Ministry of Information and Bassiji/Ghods special forces, who will become head of households for Bahai, Christian and Zoroastrian Iranians. And similarly for Lebanese, Hezbollah, Syrian, Jordanian and Palestinian families of Christian or other minority faiths.

Reportedly, this strategy emanated from Obama's planned and already BUDGETED plan to bring in around 100,000 Palestinians, mostly from Jordan, Gaza and the West Bank (with nearly a BILLION dollar budget for travel, lodging and a monthly stipend while they live here as REFUGEES.

To achieve this, the Obama Administration and our State department has increasingly softened regulations to allow Iranians and other Middle East nationals to come to the USA under a variety of guises, provide little or no permananet record like finger prints and photographing on arrival as was the case till fairly recently. And issuing them multiple entry visas in case they needed to go back and forth!

With this newly opened gate through our border, wide enough to drive a truck through, Islamic Iran barely hesitated to infiltrate hundreds and hundred of their agents UNHINDERED into our universities, where they overtly activate for the Islamic regime and Islamic ideals. Vehemently protected by Obama and Eric Holder as "Moslems" and therefore virtual "untouchable by existing laws" in this Administration. Except for the occasional exception that proves the rule of a highly publicised trial to make them look as "unbiased' as possible.

Islamic Iran is spending fortunes on hiring Immigration lawyers for the infiltrators and lobbying in Persian and local Press/Media. Each infiltration adds a trained agent - and often a suicider Palestinian - into our midst, on call for when needed.

The agent and applicant training includes learning details and tenets of the chosen religion to handle Immigration interviews as the applicants may be pretending or not know enough about the religion for which they are claiming to be in danger. Even if they are actually followers of that religion.

With Obama in charge and in reality doing exactly the same in a narrower plahing field, with tax payer money, Hillary Clinton is his accessory and General Petraeus in no position to prevent the influx of a much larger stream of Islamists

WAKE UP AMERICA before you are devoured and digested in the Obama political entrails.

Iran Using Israeli Spyware

A company in Denmark (where palestinian/islamic influence is embedded ) has been redistributing Israeli Internet-monitoring software to Iran.

By Gavriel Queenann

Cyberwarfare

WikicommonsInternet-monitoring software produced in Israel is being used by the Islamic Republic of Iran, Bloomberg reported on Friday.

According to the report, software distributor RanTek in Denmark has been stripping away packaging and labels from products produced by the Israeli company Allot and then re-selling the software to Iran.

Israeli officials say their they were unaware domestically produced systems for tracking Internet traffic were being used by Iran.

The sales violate a strict Israeli ban that prohibits “trading with the enemy,” including any shipments that reach Iran, Syria and Lebanon.

“This covers everything,” Gavriel Bar of Israel’s Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor told Bloomberg. “Imports, exports, direct, indirect. An Israeli company is not allowed to trade with Iran in any way.”

Allot officials say they didn't know their software was being redistributed to Iran.

“We do not authorize any sales to Iran,” a spokesman for Allot told Bloomberg, adding that if its products were shipped to Iran by RanTek it would constitute a “breach of contract.”

The spokesman said it is challenging to track where its products go after they’ve been sold - noting they sometimes appear on eBay.

Technology experts, however, say scanning the Internet for systems running technologies like those produced by Allot is rapidly becoming an industry standard. Western companies have uncovered numerous cases where their software was redistributed to countries that used it to track and spy on dissidents – including Iran, Bahrain, Syria and Tunisia.

Remote shut-downs for such systems have also started to come into vogue as a means of combating software piracy and use of deep-packet inspection (DPI) and email snooping systems by oppressive regimes.

Allot executives say the software that reached Iran was best suited for managing a company’s internal Internet traffic and lacked the capacity for wide-scale Internet surveillance.

But industry observers say the widespread abuse of such software in violating human rights by dictatorial regimes is well-known. Any such software should be designed with safe-guards in place, they say.

“I cannot conceive a way that DPI could be exported to Iran without a concern,” Ben Wagner, of the European University Institute in Italy, told Bloomberg.

Security analysts say the honor system Israeli software companies are on isn't working and a system of export licensing with tighter restrictions - like the one that exists for weapons sales - may be necessary to fix the problem.

ARMY - ZARDARI MUST RESIGN NOT BE OVERTHROWN

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan's powerful army is fed up with unpopular President Asif Ali Zardari and wants him out of office, but through legal means and without a repeat of the coups that are a hallmark of the country's 64 years of independence, military sources said.

Tensions are rising between Pakistan's civilian leaders and its generals over a memo that accused the army of plotting a coup after the U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden in May.

"Who isn't fed up with Zardari? It's not just the opposition and the man on the street but people within the government too," said one military source who asked not to be named.

"But there has to be a proper way. No action is being planned by the army. Even if we tried, it would be very unpopular and not just with the government and the opposition but most Pakistanis too."

The Pakistani military spokesman declined comment.

General Ashfaq Kayani has pledged to keep the military out of Pakistani politics since taking over as army chief in 2007.

Any coup -- Pakistan has had three since independence in 1947 -- could further tarnish the military's public image which has already taken a battering after the bin Laden operation, widely seen in Pakistan as a violation of sovereignty.

But the army remains the arbiter of power and analysts say it has plenty of ways to pressure Zardari to step down, especially if a link is established between him and the memo, which sought the Pentagon's help in averting a feared coup.

Businessman Mansoor Ijaz, writing in a column in the Financial Times on October 10, said a senior Pakistani diplomat had asked that a memo be delivered to the Pentagon with a plea for U.S. help to stave off a military coup in the days after the raid that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in May.

Ijaz later identified the diplomat as Pakistan's ambassador to Washington, Husain Haqqani, who denied involvement but resigned over the controversy. No evidence has emerged that the military was plotting a coup and the Pentagon at the time dismissed the memo as not credible.

Friction between Pakistan's civilian government and military have bedeviled the nuclear-armed South Asian country for almost its entire existence, with the military ruling for more than half its 64-year history after a series of coups.

In the past the army has asked Pakistani civilian leaders to resign and influenced judicial proceedings against them.

Haqqani's resignation was seen by many analysts as further weakening the civilian government, which is already beset by allegations of corruption and incompetence in the face of many challenges, including a weak economy and a Taliban insurgency.

MEMOGATE

Zardari returned to Pakistan this week from medical treatment in Dubai that raised speculation he would resign under pressure from the military over what has been dubbed "memogate."

Although his position is largely ceremonial, he wields considerable influence as leader of the ruling party and his forced departure would be a humiliation for the civilian leadership and could throw the country into turmoil.

One of the military sources suggested that no direct action would be needed against the government because it had already made so many mistakes.

"If the government is digging its own grave, we are not going to look for spades," the source said.

The military has reasserted itself after a November 26 NATO cross-border air attack killed 24 Pakistani soldiers and the memo has also given it political ammunition.

In a statement submitted to the Supreme Court, which is looking into a petition demanding an inquiry into who may have been behind the memo, Kayani said it was a serious matter which required an investigation.

"We want anyone involved, be they in government or elsewhere, to be punished. But it is not for us to do anything. If the army moves to do anything it would have national as well as international repercussions," said another military source.

"So that is not likely. Anything that has to be done has to be done by the Supreme Court."

Officials from Zardari's ruling party have played down friction with the military and say they don't fear a coup.

But they fear that some judges in the increasingly aggressive Supreme Court dislike Zardari and could move against him.

"I am not bothered about the army. I think they are acting very sensibly and would not derail the system at the moment," a senior ruling party leader told Reuters.

"The worry probably would be what the Supreme Court does. They look in a mood to manipulate things."

The government's anxiety over memogate was highlighted in comments made by Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani on Thursday.

"Let me make clear to you today that there are intrigues, conspiracies afoot to pack up the elected government," he said in a speech at the National Art Gallery.

IRANIAN SHIA INFLUENCE SHOWING IN IRAQ

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's Sunni Muslim minority rejected a call for all-party talks on Wednesday, ignoring U.S. pressure for dialogue to resolve a sectarian crisis that has erupted since American forces left the country this week. With fears mounting that the nation of 30 million might one day fragment in chaos in the absence of the U.S. troops who toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003, Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki warned Saddam's fellow Sunnis they faced exclusion from power if they walked out on his ruling coalition. ...

SYRIA

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Syrian forces killed 111 people ahead of the start of a mission to monitor President Bashar al-Assad's implementation of an Arab League peace plan, activists said on Wednesday, and France branded the killings an "unprecedented massacre." Rami Abdulrahman of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said 111 civilians and activists were killed on Tuesday when Assad's forces surrounded them in the foothills of the northern Jabal al-Zawiyah region in Idlib province and unleashed two hours of bombardment and heavy gunfire. ...

NewsCore: "The U.S. State Department offered a $10 million reward Thursday for information that helps authorities find Ezedin Abdel Aziz Khalil, better known as Yasin al Suri, an Iran-based senior financier of Al Qaeda. Suri, operating under an agreement between Al Qaeda and the Iranian government since 2005, allegedly moves money and recruits through Iran and on to Pakistan and Afghanistan, the department said in its announcement. He is an important fundraiser for the terrorist network and has collected money from donors throughout the Persian Gulf region, the department said." http://t.uani.com/sudOFb

TOP STORIES

AP: "A federal judge has signed a default judgment finding Iran, the Taliban and al-Qaida liable in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Judge George Daniels in Manhattan signed the judgment Thursday, a week after hearing testimony in the 10-year-old case. The signed ruling, which he promised last week, came in a $100 billion lawsuit brought by family members of victims of the attacks. He directed a magistrate judge to preside over remaining issues, including fixing compensatory and punitive damages. Daniels signed findings of fact saying the plaintiffs had established that the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were caused by the support the defendants provided to al-Qaida. The findings also said Iran continues to provide material support and resources to al-Qaida by providing a safe haven for al-Qaida leadership and rank-and-file al-Qaida members." http://t.uani.com/ujBnz3

NYT: "Iran put neighbors on notice Thursday that it was about to conduct vast naval exercises in the Arabian Sea, including war games near the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping lane for international oil traffic. The exercises, to start Saturday and last 10 days, are Iran's first since May 2010 and were described by the official news media as the largest the country ever planned. The scale of the maneuvers appeared intended to demonstrate Iran's military capabilities as it faces increased isolation over its suspect nuclear energy program. The exercises are bound to put Iranian warships close to vessels of the United States Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain, which patrols some of the same waters, including the Strait of Hormuz." http://t.uani.com/u1Lbtu

Nuclear Program & Sanctions

Bloomberg: "The clandestine arrangement worked smoothly for years. The Israeli company shipped its Internet- monitoring equipment to a distributor in Denmark. Once there, workers stripped away the packaging and removed the labels. Then they sent it to a man named 'Hossein' in Iran, an amiable technology distributor known to them only by his first name and impeccable English, say his partners in Israel and Denmark. Israeli trade, customs and defense officials say their departments didn't know that the systems for peering into Internet traffic, sold under the brand name NetEnforcer, had gone to a country whose leaders have called for the destruction of the Jewish state. Israel's ban on trade with its enemy failed, even though a paper trail on the deals was available in Denmark. The transactions illustrate how ineffective governments have been in blocking a global trade in new, intrusive surveillance technologies that authoritarian regimes can use as weapons for repression." http://t.uani.com/ukXDTY

WSJ: "Alibaba.com Ltd.'s trade website was inaccessible Thursday to people in Iran, according to a person familiar with the matter, just one day after the Chinese government publicly complained that Chinese buyers of Iran's iron ore had problems doing business there. It is unclear what caused the site outage or even whether the incidents are related, but it marks the latest business hiccup between two countries that have long shared a close diplomatic relationship, as the Iranian government comes under mounting international pressure over its alleged nuclear efforts. On Wednesday, China's Ministry of Commerce published a report saying that Chinese companies have had difficulty conducting business in Iran, and that iron-ore importers have been victims of fraud and 'shoddy business practices.' A ministry spokesman referred questions to China's Foreign Ministry, which didn't respond for comment." http://t.uani.com/sy90bh

Reuters: "China has bought enough spot crude from the Middle East, Africa and Russia in January to replace lost Iranian oil supply, trade sources said on Friday, putting it in a strong position as it tussles with the Islamic Republic over payment terms for 2012 contracts. China will load an additional 12.43 million barrels of crude from Iraq, Russia and West Africa in January, more than covering 285,000 barrels per day (bpd) supply cut from Iran, according to trade sources and shipping data. Sinopec Corp, the country's top refiner, cut its crude shipments from Iran for January as the two haggle over terms for next year's supplies. A long-term decline in exports to the world's second-largest oil consumer would be a major blow for Iran, as China is the largest customer for its crude sales, which are under increasing threat from growing U.S. and EU sanctions." http://t.uani.com/vZ8sJ3

Bloomberg: "Europe's threat to ban cargoes from Iran over the nation's nuclear ambitions is helping push Middle East oil-tanker hiring to a record on concern shipments from the region will be disrupted, consultant FACTS Global Energy said. The CHART OF THE DAY shows how oil tankers booked to load 2 million-barrel cargoes of Gulf crude climbed to 140 in December, the most since at least January 2005, according to data from London-based shipbroker Galbraith's Ltd. European Union foreign ministers will meet Jan. 30 to discuss possible sanctions to pressure Iran to abandon a suspected nuclear weapons program." http://t.uani.com/txYTgR

Foreign Affairs

WT: "Iraq's vice president says that Iran is 'definitely' behind Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's move to jail him on terror charges, saying it is 'not a coincidence' that his arrest warrant was announced the day after the last U.S. troops left Iraq. 'Definitely Iran was involved,' Tariq al-Hashemi told The Washington Times in an exclusive interview, speaking by phone late Wednesday from a Kurdish town in northern Iraq. 'My dear friend, they have ... staff now in the government and in the parliament. They are representing Iran.' Mr. al-Hashemi said he has been a consistent critic of the 'intervention of Iran in every respect of my country.'" http://t.uani.com/vyaknU

Opinion & Analysis

Dennis Ross in WSJ: "President Barack Obama, like President George W. Bush before him, has stated that it would be unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons. Recently, Mr. Obama has taken this a step further by declaring that he is determined to prevent the Iranians from acquiring the bomb. Does that mean that the use of force against the Iranian nuclear program is inevitable? No, nor should it be. I don't say this because I believe we can live with a nuclear-armed Iran; I do not. An Iran with nuclear weapons would confront the world with many dangers, including the very real danger that it will trigger a nuclear war in the Middle East. Consider that once Iran has nuclear weapons, nearly all of its neighbors will seek them as well to counter Iranian power and coercion. Israel, given Iranian declarations that it should be wiped off the map, will feel it has no margin for error and cannot afford to strike second in the event of a war. But Israel won't be the only country operating on a hair trigger. Each country, lacking the ability to absorb a nuclear strike, will adopt a launch-on-warning posture in a region that has many local triggers for conflict and enormous potential for miscalculation. Containment does not address that risk. Even the offer of a nuclear umbrella, with its implicit promise to obliterate the Iranians after a strike, can provide small comfort for any country in the Middle East, particularly Israel. I do not doubt that the Iranians are making progress on their nuclear program. According to the most recent International Atomic Energy Agency report, released last month, the Iranians have accumulated roughly 4,900 kilograms of low enriched uranium (LEU), enough for three to four bombs if enriched further. They have 6,200 centrifuges operating at Natanz, with a production rate of about 125 kilograms a month, and have now installed 174 centrifuges in two tandem cascades and 64 in a third in their facility near Qom. And, while the bulk of their LEU is enriched to 3.5%, the Iranians are now enriching some of their material to nearly 20%-a move that would shorten the time they would need to create weapons-grade highly enriched uranium (HEU)." http://t.uani.com/vDEOe7

Thursday, December 8, 2011

Criticism of Islam Could Soon be a Crime in America
by: Clare M. Lopez

When President Obama delivered his much-anticipated speech to the Muslim world at Cairo University in June 2009, the free world trembled while the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) gushed with praise and begged for a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The OIC is the largest head of state organization in the world after the United Nations (UN) itself and comprises 56 Muslim countries plus the Palestinians.

It claims to be the “collective voice of the Muslim world,” i.e., the ummah, and speaks on its behalf in effect as the seat of the next Islamic Caliphate. In 1990, the OIC membership adopted the “Cairo Declaration ,” which officially exempted all Muslim countries from compliance with the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights and replaced it with Islamic law (shariah). One of the fundamental laws of Islam deals with “slander ,” which is defined in shariah as saying “anything concerning a person [a Muslim] that he would dislike.” At the OIC’s Third Extraordinary Session, held in Mecca, Saudi Arabia in December 2005, the organization adopted a “Ten-Year Programme of Action to Meet the Challenges Facing the Muslim Ummah in the 21st Century.”

A key agenda item of that meeting was “the need to counter Islamophobia” by seeking to have the UN “…adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.”

The word “Islamophobia” is a completely invented word, coined by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) front group. OIC adoption of the term reflects the close operational relationship between the OIC and the Ikhwan.

Six years later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is due to host OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu in Washington, DC in mid-December 2011 to discuss how the United States can implement the OIC agenda to criminalize criticism of Islam.

Cloaked in the sanctimonious language of “Resolution 16/18 ,” that was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in April 2011, the WDC three-day experts meeting is billed as a working session to discuss legal mechanisms to combat religious discrimination (but the only religion the Human Rights Council has ever mentioned in any previous resolution is Islam).

The UN Human Rights Council, which includes such 'bastions of human rights' as China, Cuba, Libya, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, introduced Resolution 16/18 to the UN General Assembly (UNGA), where it was passed in March 2011.

The Resolution was presented to the UNGA by Pakistan (where women get the death penalty for being raped and “blasphemy” against Islam is punished by death). Ostensibly about “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and…incitement to violence against persons based on religion or belief,” the only partnership mentioned in the text is the one with the OIC. The U.S., whose official envoy to the OIC, Rashad Hussain, helped write Obama’s Cairo speech, actively collaborated in the drafting of Resolution 16/18.

Now, the OIC’s Ihsanoglu will come to Washington, DC, the capital of one of the only countries in the world with a Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and a judicial system that consistently defends it, with a publicized agenda to criminalize criticism of Islam.

His agenda, and, apparently that of his host, the U.S. Department of State, seek to bring the U.S. into full compliance with Islamic law on slander, as noted above.

Events in the nation’s capital seemed timed to ensure Ihsanoglu a warm welcome. The Center for American Progress (CAP), a think tank aligned with the Democratic Party and Obama White House, published “Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America” in August 2011.

Disturbingly specific in naming individuals associated with speaking truth about the doctrinal foundations of Islamic terrorism, the report is a blatant assault on the First Amendment and free speech in America—at least as far as Islam is concerned.

The Justice Department soon got on board the “Islamophobia” bandwagon. In the wake of the cancellation of a number of scheduled official training sessions at national security agencies by deeply knowledgeable scholars of Islamic doctrine, law, and scriptures, such as Stephen Coughlin, Steven Emerson, William Gawthrop, John Guandolo, and Robert Spencer, Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole confirmed at an 11 October 2011 press conference that the Obama administration was pulling back for review all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities in order to eliminate all references to Islam that Muslim Brotherhood groups have found offensive.

No doubt much encouraged by national capitulation at such a level, Salam Al-Marayati, the president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), an Islamic organization that shares the jihadist agenda and ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, wrote an op-ed piece that was published in the Los Angeles Times on 19 October 2011.

In his piece, Al-Marayati openly threatened the FBI with “collapse of a critical partnership with the Muslim American community.” Later that same day, the Justice Department convened a meeting with Muslim shariah advocates at George Washington University in WDC, chaired by its civil rights division chief, Tom Perez.

Dwight C. Holton , the U.S. Attorney in Oregon who was also present, announced that, after speaking with Attorney General Eric Holder, he wanted “to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, (Obama), this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for. They will not be tolerated.”

A phobia is an irrational fear. It is not irrational to give warning of an ideology resolutely committed to eradication of free belief, expression, speech, and even thought.

It is suicidal for a free society willingly to collaborate with those, like the Muslim Brotherhood and the OIC, which are determined to destroy Western civilization from within—and have told us so, repeatedly, consistently, and publicly.

Further, collaboration in such an anti-freedom campaign represents abrogation of the professional oath of office of every federal official who has sworn to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Silencing those who would warn of impending catastrophe only ensures victory to the enemy and loss of our most rare and precious inheritance: the American love of liberty.

When President Obama delivered his much-anticipated speech to the Muslim world at Cairo University in June 2009, the free world trembled while the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) gushed with praise and begged for a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The OIC is the largest head of state organization in the world after the United Nations (UN) itself and comprises 56 Muslim countries plus the Palestinians. It claims to be the “collective voice of the Muslim world,” i.e., the ummah, and speaks on its behalf in effect as the seat of the next Islamic Caliphate. In 1990, the OIC membership adopted the “Cairo Declaration ,” which officially exempted all Muslim countries from compliance with the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights and replaced it with Islamic law (shariah).

One of the fundamental laws of Islam deals with “slander ,” which is defined in shariah as saying “anything concerning a person [a Muslim] that he would dislike.”

At the OIC’s Third Extraordinary Session, held in Mecca, Saudi Arabia in December 2005, the organization adopted a “Ten-Year Programme of Action to Meet the Challenges Facing the Muslim Ummah in the 21st Century.” A key agenda item of that meeting was “the need to counter Islamophobia” by seeking to have the UN “…adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.”

The word “Islamophobia” is a completely invented word, coined by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) front group. OIC adoption of the term reflects the close operational relationship between the OIC and the Ikhwan.

Six years later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is due to host OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu in Washington, DC in mid-December 2011 to discuss how the United States can implement the OIC agenda to criminalize criticism of Islam. Cloaked in the sanctimonious language of “Resolution 16/18 ,” that was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in April 2011, the WDC three-day experts meeting is billed as a working session to discuss legal mechanisms to combat religious discrimination (but the only religion the Human Rights Council has ever mentioned in any previous resolution is Islam). The UN Human Rights Council, which includes such bastions of human rights as China, Cuba, Libya, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, introduced Resolution 16/18 to the UN General Assembly (UNGA), where it was passed in March 2011.

The Resolution was presented to the UNGA by Pakistan (where women get the death penalty for being raped and “blasphemy” against Islam is punished by death). Ostensibly about “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and…incitement to violence against persons based on religion or belief,” the only partnership mentioned in the text is the one with the OIC. The U.S., whose official envoy to the OIC, Rashad Hussain, helped write Obama’s Cairo speech, actively collaborated in the drafting of Resolution 16/18.

Now, the OIC’s Ihsanoglu will come to Washington, DC, the capital of one of the only countries in the world with a Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and a judicial system that consistently defends it, with a publicized agenda to criminalize criticism of Islam. His agenda, and, apparently that of his host, the U.S. Department of State, seek to bring the U.S. into full compliance with Islamic law on slander, as noted above.

Events in the nation’s capital seemed timed to ensure Ihsanoglu a warm welcome. The Center for American Progress (CAP), a think tank aligned with the Democratic Party and Obama White House, published “Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America” in August 2011. Disturbingly specific in naming individuals associated with speaking truth about the doctrinal foundations of Islamic terrorism, the report is a blatant assault on the First Amendment and free speech in America—at least as far as Islam is concerned.

The Justice Department soon got on board the “Islamophobia” bandwagon. In the wake of the cancellation of a number of scheduled official training sessions at national security agencies by deeply knowledgeable scholars of Islamic doctrine, law, and scriptures, such as Stephen Coughlin, Steven Emerson, William Gawthrop, John Guandolo, and Robert Spencer, Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole confirmed at an 11 October 2011 press conference that the Obama administration was pulling back for review all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities in order to eliminate all references to Islam that Muslim Brotherhood groups have found offensive.

No doubt much encouraged by national capitulation at such a level, Salam Al-Marayati, the president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), an Islamic organization that shares the jihadist agenda and ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, wrote an op-ed piece that was published in the Los Angeles Times on 19 October 2011. In his piece, Al-Marayati openly threatened the FBI with “collapse of a critical partnership with the Muslim American community.” Later that same day, the Justice Department convened a meeting with Muslim shariah advocates at George Washington University in WDC, chaired by its civil rights division chief, Tom Perez. Dwight C. Holton , the U.S. Attorney in Oregon who was also present, announced that, after speaking with Attorney General Eric Holder, he wanted “to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for. They will not be tolerated.”

A phobia is an irrational fear. It is not irrational to give warning of an ideology resolutely committed to eradication of free belief, expression, speech, and even thought. It is suicidal for a free society willingly to collaborate with those, like the Muslim Brotherhood and the OIC, which are determined to destroy Western civilization from within—and have told us so, repeatedly, consistently, and publicly.

Further, collaboration in such an anti-freedom campaign represents abrogation of the professional oath of office of every federal official who has sworn to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Silencing those who would warn of impending catastrophe only ensures victory to the enemy and loss of our most rare and precious inheritance: the American love of liberty.

Alan note: and a matter Obama is assiduously pursuing and imposing on America as it conforms to his personal plans to destroy America as we have known it and turn it into just another ruined vassal of the Islamic Caliphate.

Clare M. Lopez, a senior fellow at the Clarion Fund, is a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on Middle East, national defense, and counterterrorism issues.

Saturday, December 3, 2011

Ambassador Bolton, would you PLEASE address the naivety of such views? Sure wish you were on that stage with Newt & Co....as a Nation, we NEED to hear your concise, poignant counter argument to the ever increasingly weak position the current adiministration has placed both the U.S. & Israel in.

(Alan note: Panetta, as a long time proponent of the U.S. Communist party and tool of his Marxist-Islamic boss Obama, who absolutely desires the total destruction of Israel but with typical Islamic "taghiya" (permitted lies to protect or promote Islam) pretends he likes Israel while doing everything he can to disable this enemy to his buddies in Iran, America UNDER Obama is set to weaken and destroy Israel).

DEBKAfile Special Report December 3, 2011, 2:25 PM (GMT+02:00)

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta with US President
US President Barack Obama declared in ringing tones Wednesday, Nov. 30, "We don't compromise when it comes to Israel's security. No ally surpasses Israel in importance to the US." Three days later, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in a lecture to the Brookings Institute was crystal-clear about what America expects Israel to deliver in return.

He cited "Israeli estimates" to argue against an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities because "it would set back (the program) by one to two years at best." He urged Israel to take risks and get to "the damn negotiating table" with the Palestinians, and "mend fences with countries like Turkey, Egypt and Jordan, which share an interest in regional stability"- in view of Israel's "growing isolation in a volatile region."

The content and tone of the defense secretary's lecture were clearly designed to rebut Israel Defense Minister Ehud Barak's comments Thursday, Dec. 1, that as a sovereign state, Israel is bound to determine its own security needs and the ultimate responsibility for its national security rests with the government in Jerusalem and the Israeli Defense Forces – no one else.

Panetta's lecture was long on generalizations and contradictions and short on facts.

The "Israeli estimates" he cited referred to the most outspoken opponents of the Netanyahu-Barak government, namely the former Mossad chief Meir Dagan, the ex-chief of staff Gaby Ashkenazi, former military intelligence chief Amos Yadlin, as well as Kadima leader Tzipi Livni.

debkafile: Their political agenda would tend to overrule their true views on the merits of an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites. It also runs contrary to the assessment of every responsible, knowledgeable Israeli intelligence and military expert, who all believe an attack could delay Iran's nuclear armament by three or four years at the least.

Yet Panetta chose the contrary, minority view to support his arguments against an Israeli attack.

He also contradicted himself on at least one point:

On the one hand, the defense secretary told the Washington forum that, "No greater threat exists to the security and prosperity of the Middle East than a nuclear-armed Iran," adding that Obama has not ruled out using military force to stop Iran from going nuclear.

On the other hand, Panetta warned "the consequences (of an Israeli attack) could be that we have an escalation that …would not only involve many lives… but trigger Iranian retaliation against US forces, and ultimately spark a backlash in Iran that would bolster its rulers."

The facts contradict this assertion: An opinion poll secretly conducted at the universities of Tehran, Shiraz and Isfahan in early November showed that 72 percent of those canvassed were certain the population of Iran's cities would rise up against the Islamic regime the moment the US or Israel attacked its nuclear program.

As to the secretary's argument that it would also be hard for attackers to reach Iran's nuclear installations because some of them (the centrifuge plant transferred to Fordo, near Qom) have already been moved underground, he failed to answer two key questions:

1. Why was Israel held back from carrying out a military operation when those installations were still on the surface and vulnerable?

2. By continuing to hold back Israel back, is he saying that Iran should be allowed to go all the way to manufacturing a nuclear bomb without military interference? Is the US defense secretary advising Israel to learn to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, even though its menace is constantly expanding?

Panetta did not supply an answer to either question. But he was a lot clearer on Iran's threat to American security when he said: "…any disruption of the free flow of commerce through the Persian Gulf is a very grave threat to all of us" and a redline for the US."
Was he saying that a nuclear-armed Iran was not a red line for America?

The defense secretary then offered the opinion that "sanctions and diplomatic pressure were working" to isolate Iran. debkafile's Middle East sources emphasize that he would not find a single informed politician, general, intelligence official or economist in the region who agreed with him. Just the reverse: the region's leaders and international financial community report that the Islamic Republic has overcome sanctions with remarkable success and they have not slowed down its nuclear progress by a second.

The US would safeguard Israel's security, said Panetta, but "Israel has a responsibility to pursue shared goals (with the US) – to build regional support for Israeli and United States' security objectives."

He was referring to the US offer of a security shield in return for Israel's pursuit of "shared goals." The only trouble with that offer is that when it was put before Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Emirates, Turkey, Egypt and Jordan, they agreed to pursue only certain "shared goals" – but not those affecting their national security, especially on the Iranian question, which they preferred to address by developing their own independent nuclear options. Therefore, the US shield on offer would be very limited.

His assumption that if Israel could persuade the Palestinians to sit down for peace talks and if it reached out to Turkey, Jordan and Egypt, relations would instantly improve, is just as fallacious.

Perhaps Panetta has not heard that Mahmoud Abbas stands by his year-long refusal to face Israel across any "damned tables" and only this week tried to manipulate the Middle East Quartet into forcing Israel to accept an indirect track.
Neither does he address the anti-Israel posture adopted by the rulers of Egypt, Turkey and Jordan to persuade their people of their affinity with the Islamist forces rising in the region, like the ultra-orthodox Salafis of Egypt.

Neither Israel, nor any of the mainstream Arab governments accept the Obama-Panetta proposition that time will magically temper the extremism of the Islamist regimes. They have before them the example of a former Democratic president, Jimmy Carter, who made the same argument 32 years ago for the West to dump the shah and welcome Khomeini's ayatollah regime.

It is time for Jerusalem to state clearly to the Obama administration that there is no way to reconcile Israel's essential security needs with the rejection of a military operation to cripple Iran's nuclear program; or to promote the rise of Islamist forces in the Arab capitals neighboring on the Jewish state and at the same time hold Israel to account for not reaching out to them.

Israel must put its cards on the table, after Panetta put his, by saying: "I understand the view that this is not the time to pursue peace, and that the Arab awakening further imperils the dream of a safe and secure, Jewish and democratic Israel. But I disagree with that view."

Friday, November 11, 2011

This kind of anger is growing/spreading in America and in some European countries and the more ObaHussein adds Executive Order layers to protect them, the worse it is getting for everyone.

OMG! Obama Must Go!

INTERNET COMMENT

"Its time to rip the face off people like Perry and Daniels and Christie who are sell-outs to these wife-beating, polygamous, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, pro-Sharia bastards who have infiltrated our political system with their elixir of modern American politics - PETRODOLLARS!!!We KNOW we have a Muslim in the White House. Now we KNOW they have infiltrated the OTHER Party - Heads they win, tails we loose.ALL Republicans candidates for office should be FORCED to sign an Anti-Sharia Promise and Commitment."

The latter, co-authored with P. David Gaubatz,exposes the radical Muslim Brotherhood and its fronts in the United States.

The Brotherhood Code!

Allah is our objective, the prophet is our leader, the Koran is our law, Jihad is our way, dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”“Jihad is our way” explicitly endorses the reinstatement of a worldwide Islamic regime.

I would like to talk to you today about how the Muslim Brotherhood penetrates the Republican Party and especially the latest disturbing evidence you have on Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan in this context. As you know, David Horowitz called out both Khan and Norquist on this issue in his speech at CPAC on Feb. 12, 2011.

First, let’s begin with your knowledge of the Muslim Brotherhood’s penetration of the United States in general and what you know about it its front groups on our soil.

Sperry: Thanks Jamie.

As you know, the Brotherhood is a worldwide jihadist movement based in Cairo. It’s the parent of Hamas and al-Qaida and the source of most of the jihadist ideology and related terror throughout the world today. After 9/11, FBI agents discovered the founding archives of its U.S. operations during a raid of a terrorist suspect’s home in Annandale, Va. The secret papers revealed that the Brotherhood, which was set up in America with millions in Saudi cash, has a plan to “destroy” America and other Western nations “from within,” and is using its agents and front groups in the U.S. to carry out that strategy.

The secret papers also revealed that virtually every major Muslim group in America is a front for the radical Brotherhood, and they’ve raised millions of dollars for Hamas and al-Qaida right here inside America. They also control most of the major mosques, including the 9/11 mosque just outside Washington that found housing for some of the hijackers and helped prepare them for their martyrdom operation.

FP: What’s been done about them?

Sperry: Until recent years, their leaders operated with virtual impunity. But 9/11 broke the PC handcuffs on investigators. Several major U.S. Brotherhood figures — including Abdurahman Alamoudi, Shukri Abu Baker, Mohammad El-Mezain, Anwar Awlaki, Sami al-Arian — are now either behind bars or dead. Major front groups have been blacklisted as unindicted co-conspirators. And a key front, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), which we expose in our book, has been banned by the FBI from outreach functions and stripped by the IRS of its nonprofit status following our investigation. But the handcuffs haven’t come off completely.

FP: How haven¹t the handcuffs come off completely?

Sperry: The Islamic Society of North America is the leading edge of the Brotherhood movement here, yet it remains a formal outreach partner of the government even though ISNA was implicated in a criminal scheme to funnel over $12 million to Hamas terrorists. Its president, in fact, just spoke at a Justice Department conference on “post-9/11 discrimination.” Mohamed Magid also prayed with Obama in the White House. It’s not just Obama though. I’ve seen the matrix with all the names of the leaders in the U.S. Brotherhood’s Shurah Council. They include people Bush prayed with after 9/11. The enemy has been inside the wire for quite some time. It’s just making deeper inroads now.

FP: Ok let’s get to Suhail Khan and Grover Norquist. What information do you have on them?

Sperry: Let me start with some background regarding Norquist. Though he’s known as the Beltway’s top antitax lobbyist, he’s also a paid lobbyist for enemies of the United States. Prior to 9/11, he was bankrolled by the General Masul of the U.S. Brotherhood — the same Alamoudi I mentioned earlier — who also happened to be al-Qaida’s top bagman in America.

FP: Evidence?

Sperry: A July 14, 2005, U.S. Treasury Department press release stated: “According to information available to the U.S. government, the September 2003 arrest of Alamoudi was a severe blow to al-Qaida, as Alamoudi had a close relationship with al-Qaida and had raised money for al-Qaida in the United States.”

In addition, I asked an FBI official who worked the Alamoudi case to elaborate on the information cited in the Treasury statement. He told me (as I reported in Muslim Mafia) that at the time of Alamoudi’s arrest, U.S. intelligence had intercepted al-Qaida chatter out of Saudi Arabia lamenting that “one of our main financiers has been taken out.”

I have no evidence Norquist knew Alamoudi was laundering Saudi cash for al-Qaida at the time he was taking his own cash from him. But he knew Alamoudi was, at a minimum, making statements in support of terrorists. Now his financier and silent partner is sitting behind bars as a convicted terrorist.

FP: What kind of money changed hands?

Sperry: As I reported in my first book, “Infiltration,” Norquist’s old lobbying firm, Janus-Merritt, was a registered agent for Alamoudi, and received some $40,000 from that dubious client. (Norquist and his Muslim partner at the firm also represented the Pakistani government on military aid.) In addition, Alamoudi gave Norquist at least $20,000 in seed money to start up an outwardly Republican front for the Brotherhood called the Islamic Free Market Institute, which was run by Alamoudi’s deputy and later appeared on a JTTF threat matrix.

FP: And that’s when Khan enters the picture?

Sperry: Right. Alamoudi sponsored Khan — Khan being the eldest son of one of the founding fathers of the Brotherhood in America. Norquist got Khan into the Bush White House as the gatekeeper for Muslims, whereupon he got al-Arian and other senior Brotherhood figures past security.

FP: What were they trying to do?

Sperry: The top of their agenda was convincing the president to eliminate the Justice Department’s use of undisclosed evidence in deportation cases against Arabs suspected of terrorism. On the eve of 9/11, Norquist personally went to the Hill and lobbied to, in his words, “get rid of the secret evidence laws which have been used to discriminate against Muslims and Arabs in this country.” After 9/11, he and his Islamic Institute lobbied against the Patriot Act. He didn’t miss a beat trying to deny law enforcement the tools they need to crack down on Muslim terrorists, even after they slaughtered 3,000 Americans and attacked the Pentagon.

FP: Where’s Khan now?

Sperry: Thanks to Norquist’s sponsorship, Khan has also been able to infiltrate other Republican circles, including the American Conservative Union. Meanwhile, he’s teamed up with Imam Mohamed Magid, Obama’s Muslim outreach partner, to do interfaith outreach with evangelical Christian leaders in the South.

FP: How is that possible?

Sperry: What Norquist does, and this is truly sinister business, is dress up Brotherhood agents who underwrite him as patriotic conservatives in order to give them political cover and gain the trust of the GOP establishment. Then with the backing of duped party leaders secured, he promotes these neo-Islamists to positions of power inside government.

His latest project is Imad “David” Ramadan.

FP: Tell us about him.

Sperry: Well, he’s running for the Virginia state legislature with breathless boosterism from Norquist, which is your first red flag. Last year, Ramadan signed an open letter to Republicans in support of the Ground Zero mosque. He signed it with Khan and Norquist’s wife, who happens to be a Palestinian Muslim.

There are other red flags. Ramadan, who’s a Lebanese immigrant, is a shadowy figure with suspicious holes in his resume. He says he’s involved in various “consulting” businesses in the Middle East. He also processes U.S. visas and green cards for Muslim immigrants. But the source of his sudden wealth is largely unknown for someone who declared bankruptcy. He’s given large sums of cash to GOP officials, to shore up their support, as well as to his own campaign. Based on who’s been donating to his campaign, Ramadan would represent the interests of Islamists should he win the Northern Virginia seat he’s running for. Of particular note from the long list of his Muslim contributors is a $5,000 political donation he received from something called the Virginia Muslim PAC. Its president is Mukit Hossain. Turns out Hossain also runs a charitable front for the Muslim Brotherhood in Herndon, Va., called FAITH. A few years ago, Wachovia bank closed FAITH’s accounts due to suspicious activity related to possible money-laundering. A year earlier, the so-called charity received a $150,000 donation from Brotherhood leader and Saudi bagman M. Yacub Mirza, whose home and offices were raided by the feds after 9/11. Hossain keeps his FAITH office in the same raided building. Hossain’s benefactor was close to Alamoudi before Alamoudi landed in the slammer.

FP: The evidence?

Sperry: According to a federal affidavit (unsealed Oct 2003) for a search warrant of Mirza’s Herndon, Va., residence and offices, Mirza is president of SAAR Foundation, a suspected charitable front for al-Qaida founded by Saudi billionaire Sulaiman Abdul Aziz Al-Rajhi (S.A.A.R.), one of the original Golden Chain sponsors of bin Laden.

According to page 53 of the affidavit, written by special agent David C. Kane: “I believe that one source of funds flowing through (Mirza’s offices) is from the wealthy Al-Rajhi family in Saudi Arabia.” He cites one transaction of $3,388,000, along with others in the millions. The affidavit says Mirza has “signatory authority” over the bank accounts. SAAR had an active account with Wachovia before closing it within weeks of the 9/11 attacks. Some checks also were drawn on a bank account in the name of Al-Rajhi Banking and Investment Corp., Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Now let’s tie it all together: Hossain serves on the board of a nearby mosque run by imam Magid, the ISNA chief working with Khan and Obama. This Ramadan donor is also active in the Muslim American Society, which prosecutors say is a key node in the Muslim Brotherhood’s network here.

Another Muslim listed as a donor to Ramadan’s campaign is Norquist protege Ali Tulbah, who replaced Khan at the White House when Khan landed a high-level spot at the Transportation Department. Tulbah’s father helps run a Brotherhood mosque in Houston.

FP: So Ramadan is part of the same Islamist influence operation run out of Grover’s office?

Sperry: You got it.

FP: How dangerous is Grover Norquist?

Sperry: Very dangerous. Here you have a “conservative” who built the Trojan Horse that the enemy is using to infiltrate, sabotage and destroy the U.S. from within. Norquist is helping the U.S. Brotherhood accomplish the “Grand Jihad” spelled out in its founding archives. In fact, he’s helping pull them through the gates. I think it’s fairly plain now that he knows he’s undermining U.S. security, and that he’s doing so in a time of war.

FP: So why is he still accepted in conservative circles?

Sperry: Some Republican leaders are starting to speak out publicly against him, lawmakers like Coburn and Wolf (although Wolf endorsed his protégé Ramadan after Ramadan gave him $4,700 in campaign cash). But others still see him as just a small-government libertarian who wants to widen the GOP tent. Make no mistake: Norquist is not some random deficit hawk eyeing the bloated defense budget for cuts. Nor is he some innocuous misguided Ron Paul dove. He’s something far different, far more pernicious. He’s virulently anti-military, anti-borders, anti-security. He’s a saboteur aiding and abetting groups hostile to U.S. interests. And now that he’s married to a Muslim, I doubt money is the only motivating factor behind his decidedly anti-American behavior.

If by now Republicans can’t smell a rat — a Pied Piper of rats, no less — they have failed miserably in their constitutional duty to “defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.” If the Republican Party can’t stop an Islamist Fifth Column within its own ranks, my word, we’re all doomed.

FP: What’s the status of CAIR’s “trespassing” suit against your co-author and his son, Chris, who snuck behind enemy lines as a CAIR intern and walked out with boxes of incriminating evidence that CAIR ordered him to shred?

Sperry: The most extraordinary thing about that complaint — and so far only Politico.com has picked up on this angle — is that CAIR never defends itself against the book’s claims, never alleges libel. It stipulates everything in “Muslim Mafia” to be true — which is why in its complaint, it seeks to confiscate all copies of “Muslim Mafia” in an attempt to censor the book. Of course, it cannot dispute its own internal documents, which are so damning that federal prosecutors have seized them, several boxes full, as part of a grand jury investigation of CAIR. Still, it’s highly newsworthy given the seriousness of the charges in the book.

CAIR has hit several potholes in filing its case. First it filed under a false name and had to refile. Then it ran out of money and had to replace its outside lawyers with a CAIR legal staffer who has a glaring personal conflict, given her role in overseeing the destruction of evidence Chris tried to preserve while working inside CAIR’s offices. Then CAIR failed to produce for the court a confidentiality agreement it claims Chris signed. Even so, the Clinton-appointed judge, who has ruled in favor of Gitmo detainees, has let the case go forward, and the defense is looking forward to deposing CAIR leaders. It will be the first time Nihad Awad, for one, will have to explain, under oath, why he attended a secret meeting with Hamas leaders in Philly just months before forming CAIR.

What’s more, CAIR’s executive director will have to explain why CAIR, if it’s not Hamas, would appear on a Hamas meeting agenda. The smoking-gun exhibit is reproduced in the appendix of “Muslim Mafia.” It’s a 1994 meeting agenda listing CAIR among member “organizations” of the U.S. “Palestine Committee” of Hamas. CAIR was put in charge of “coordination” among the Hamas front groups.

This document — in addition to others, including ones unearthed from CAIR’s own files – speaks materially to CAIR being founded by Hamas, controlled by Hamas, and carrying out Hamas’ agenda inside the United States. So stay tuned for the deposition transcripts.

Monday, November 7, 2011

Obama's attempt to take credit for the Bin Laden mission is pure nonsense (to be polite)! He made NONE of the final decisions, tried for months to delay or block the mission and was on the golf course when the mission was approved by Leon Panetta and HIllary Clinton when the SEALS indicated they were ready to go.

With a top level instruction to DISREGARD any effor tot abort the mission EVEN by the President! In the photo, you can see Obama is still in his Polo shirt golf outfit!

OBAMA DRAGGED IN FROM THE GOLF COURSE AND SEATED IN A CORNER - NOT A COMMANDING OPERATIONAL POSITION!

Check out facts!

Forget whatever you think you know about the night Osama bin Laden was killed. According to a former Navy SEAL who claims to have the inside track, the mangled tales told of that historic night have only now been corrected.

President Obama stepped up to a podium in the East Room of the White House that night to announce bin Laden’s death. That rapid announcement, explained Pfarrer, posed a major threat to U.S. national security.

“There was a choice that night,” Pfarrer told TheDC. “There was a choice to keep the mission secret.” America, Pfarrer explained, could have left things alone for “weeks or months … even though there was evidence left on the ground there … and use the intelligence and finish off al-Qaida.”

But Obama’s announcement, he said, “rendered moot all of the intelligence that was gathered from the nexus of al-Qaida. The computer drives, the hard drives, the videocasettes, the CDs, the thumb drives, everything. Before that could even be looked through, the political decision was made to take credit for the operation.”

Pfarrer also suggests some of the emerging claims were simply self-aggrandizing “fairy tales.”

“The story they tried to tell — it’s preposterous. And the CIA tried to jump in. About mid-June the CIA tried to jump into the car and drive the victory lap. There’s this whole stuff about the CIA guy joining the operation, the gallant interpreter — he couldn’t even fast rope!” exclaimed Pfarrer, referring to a technique for descending from an airborne helicopter.

“There’s this fairy tale about him walking out of the compound during the operation to tell crowds of Pakistanis to go home and everything’s OK.”

Saturday, November 5, 2011

Egyptians attend a rally against the military ruling council in Cairo's Tahrir Square on October 28, 2011, calling for a rapid transition from military to civilian rule in Egypt following the February ouster of president Hosni Mubarak.

WASHINGTON - The United States would be "satisfied" if fair parliamentary elections in Egypt produced a Muslim Brotherhood victory, President Barack Obama's pointman for democratic transitions in the Middle East said Friday.

With three senior Moslem Brotherhood leaders running White House policy what do you expect?

"I think the answer is yes, I think we will be satisfied, if it is a free and fair election," the newly appointed special co-ordinator for Middle East transitions, William Taylor, said when asked about what the U.S. reaction would be if the Islamist party comes out ahead in elections starting this month.

"What we need to do is judge people and parties and movements on what they do, not what they're called," Taylor told a forum at the Atlantic Council, a Washington think-tank.

In June Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Washington had been in "limited contacts" with the Muslim Brotherhood as part of an effort to adjust to Egypt's political upheaval.

But the talks drew ire from some Republican U.S. lawmakers who expressed concern that the Brotherhood would seek to establish Muslim Shariah law in Egypt and North Africa.

The region has seen unprecedented change this year in the "Arab spring" movement, notably in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia where longstanding dictatorships were toppled, in large part by people's revolutions.

"These revolutions, this movement toward democracy has the ability to repudiate the terrorist narrative," Taylor said.

But Cairo was plunged into turmoil this week when the military-controlled transitional government announced plans to take greater control of the formation of a new Egyptian constitution.

"I do see it as a problem," Taylor, who visited Cairo last week and met with several military leaders, warned about a possible renewed military power grab in Egypt, adding that such a move would "lead to a bad place — authoritarian again."

Egypt's powerful Muslim Brotherhood and other smaller Islamist parties threatened to bring a million protesters into the streets in opposition of the plan.

Taylor said that while he did not meet Muslim Brotherhood officials in Cairo, "I would have," given the opportunity.

"As long as parties, entities do not espouse or conduct violence, we'll talk to them."

Alan Note: what does this Dhimmi pawn Taylor call Sharia law incited/induced violence against individuals? Nothing? Freedom? Religious Dictatorship? Or it's OK because Obama and his Moslem Brotherhood cronies in the White House say so? Get real Taylor!

Take a look at the "supremely violent" teachings/tenets of Islam's Sharia which insist on death and dismemberment for failure to obey them! Is that better than the military?

Go find a brain somewhere, you've forsaken yours.

Taylor made broad comparisons between the Brotherhood and the Islamist Ennahda party in Tunisia that took the largest number of seats in that country's recent election and is now forming a coalition.

"This is something that we are used to, and should not be afraid of. We should deal with them," he said of Islamist parties that come to power.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

As you read this and view the video, please remember the following KEY factor of who the Moslem Brotherhood - cleared and working DIRECTLY out of the White House and Homeland Security - in an advisory group capacity really is and represents:

MOSLEM BROTHERHOOD CREDO: "Allah is our objective; the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations."

(Apparently, according to oft publicized Islamic tenets, not just their own deaths but the death of non-MOSLEMS who refuse to convert to Islam! Or pay special "jaziyah" tax to be allowed to live!

Nor can they follow our American nor any other Constitution except the Koran!)

by Pam Geller

Homeland Insecurity in the hot seat: Big Sis, Janet Napolitano, with the most most disturbing hairdo/color I haingve ever seen, admits that she has been giving secret level clearance to Muslim Brotherhood-tied operatives here in the US at the US Immigration and Enforcement hearings.

This is jawdropping testimony. Looking like a character in a John Waters film, Janet Napolitano is either clueless, complicit or downright lying to cover for her Muslim Brotherhood appointments. Napolitano denies being aware of a Muslim Brotherhood-tied operative whom she swore in.

Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas does a spectacular job on pressing Napolitano's knowledge of the story that was posted yesterday concerning Mohamed Elibiary, the Homeland Security Adviser who allegedly leaked intel and shopped classified Info to media. I warned of Elibiary's appointment back in 2010. He asked if she was aware and she said she was not aware. Gohmert further pressed Napolitano of her knowledge of Elibiary's support of the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Again she feigned concern and professed ignorance. This is the head of Homeland Security claiming ignorance of the most dangerous threat to the homeland, the global jihad and Islamic imperialism and expansion.

All of her answers indicate that she is being led by her not inconsequential nose by those who seek "to eliminate and destroy Western civilization from within."

Gohmert asked her if it concerned her at all and ...... she didn't answer.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Timing is everything. Qaddafi was not killed in retaliation for his attacks on American servicemen in Berlin in 1986, or the downing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1989. He was not killed for his central role in the USSR's terror networks going back to the 1960s and 1970s. He was killed after coming over to our side of George Bush's "war on terror" in the final phase of a civil war in Libya in which his regime fought al Qaeda affiliates.

Horrific as it sounds, Qaddafi was killed because we and our NATO allies joined the other side -- the al Qaeda affiliates.

Lawrence Auster elaborates on why the event rankles:

Kaddafi never violated his agreements with us and never became a threat to us or our allies. He spoke in the warmest terms of the United States and of Obama.

BUT he limited the Moslem Brotherhood and al-Qaeda activity in Libya and stunted their rise to Sharia based power.

Yet the instant that people whom we chose to call democrats(in reality extreme Islamic jihadists) rose up in rebellion against him, our ideology and what we (mis)-perceived as our political self-interest (actually Obama's) required that we side against him, we attacked his country, bombed his military and his government, bombed his residence, drove him from power, and now we have killed him.

I will not become a moral relativist and make the despicable statement, which some commentators on the anti-war right have made, that the U.S. is as immoral as the Soviet Union.

Nevertheless, there is now significant and terrible overlap between the behavior of the U.S.S.R and the behavior of the (Obama) United States. We are no longer a moral state; we are not a state under the rule of law.

We are, as Solzhenitsyn said of the Soviet Union,an ideological state, a state that will do anything, violate any agreement, betray any ally or friend, tell any lie, cover up any truth, in order to advance its ideology and its power that is associated with that ideology.

In betraying and killing a foreign leader with whom we had made peace, we have taken on terrible karma. I tremble to think of how that karma will manifest itself against us in the years to come.

(A comparison of Obama's actions creating another Khomeini type regime in Libya and the similar bloodshed and suppression in the future has been examined in Persian language sites and time permitting, will appear here soon in both English and Farsi).

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III told a congressional hearing on Thursday that the bureau is conducting a review of training programs after disclosure of materials that equated devout Muslims with a greater propensity for violent extremism.

Mr. Mueller said that one part of the training program disclosed in a press account was "inappropriate and offensive," [that would be the true part of the training in the first paragraph, don't you see. Muslim Brotherhood can't let that get out.---Dorrie] but that the session was a "one-off" and not likely to be repeated.

"We have undertaken a review from top to bottom of our counterterrorism training," Mr. Mueller said. "I think these are isolated incidents, and in the course of that review, we've had outreach to academicians and others to assist us in reviewing the materials and assuring that that offensive content does not appear."

The comments came in response to questions from Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky, Illinois Democrat, during a hearing before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, about leaked training materials from an FBI training session at its institute in Quantico, Va., in March.

The exchange prompted charges that Mr. Mueller was knuckling under to political correctness aimed at muzzling critics of Islam.

The materials, Mrs. Schakowsky said, stated of Muslims that "the more religious they get, the more violent they are. And I understand that there's been training [sessions] where the Prophet Muhammad has actually been called a cult leader and [where] the Islamic practice of giving to charity [has been described as] no more than, quote, 'a funding mechanism for combat.'"

The FBI materials were first reported and posted online by Wired Magazine's Danger Room blog.

"In this particular instance," said Mr. Mueller, "reports of what had been in that training came up from the students [does one wonder if those were Muslim students?], and we took action to assure that that inappropriate, offensive content was not provided to others."

He added that there had been "other instances [of training] that may include what would be perceived as offensive content."

The exchange highlights a long-running dispute, both about the counterterrorism training provided by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, but more deeply about the nature of the threat posed by the ideology of Islamic terrorism.

Mr. Mueller "is saying that this correlation [between piety and violence] is offensive because Islamic supremacist groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) tell him that it offends them," said Robert Spencer, a writer on Islam.

Mr. Spencer is one of those whose training presentations for law enforcement - including for the FBI - have been criticized as anti-Muslim. CAIR describes itself as a civil rights organization and denies any link to terrorism.

"Mueller and the FBI have departed from a pursuit of the truth and are following a politically correct agenda that makes us all less safe," Mr. Spencer told the Times.

John Guandolo, a former FBI agent and another counterterrorism trainer, called it "outrageous" that "almost the only people our leaders in national security and law enforcement are looking to for guidance about Islam" are representatives of groups like CAIR, which he said is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, a global political network that promotes Islamic law and a political view of Islam as not just a personal faith, but a code for the whole of society.

"The FBI director's job is not to be the politically correct police, but to look at facts and evidence," Mr. Guandolo said. "The fact is, the major threat does not come from terrorist attacks. It comes from the Muslim Brotherhood."

Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole confirmed on Wednesday that the Obama administration was pulling back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam that some Muslim groups have claimed are offensive.

"I recently directed all components of the Department of Justice to re-evaluate their training efforts in a range of areas, from community outreach to national security," Cole told a panel at the George Washington University law school.

The move comes after complaints from advocacy organizations including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and others identified as Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the 2004 Holy Land Foundation terror fundraising trial.

In a Wednesday Los Angeles Times op-ed, Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) president Salam al-Marayati threatened the FBI with a total cutoff of cooperation between American Muslims and law enforcement if the agency failed to revise its law enforcement training materials.

Maintaining the training materials in their current state "will undermine the relationship between law enforcement and the Muslim American community," al-Marayati wrote.

Multiple online sources detail MPAC's close alignment with CAIR.

In his op-ed, Al-Marayati demanded that the Justice Department and the FBI "issue a clear and unequivocal apology to the Muslim American community" and "establish a thorough and transparent vetting process in selecting its trainers and materials." [Man, these people really do think they're hot stuff, don't they?--Dorrie]

Specifically, al-Marayati called for a new "interagency task force" to review the training materials" --- a task force including representatives of the Islamist organizations the FBI is tasked with monitoring. [I know this is an old and tired saying, but it really is the fox demanding the right to be in the hen house, isn't it?]

Some believe the Obama administration's Justice Department will go even further.

"The Attorney General has announced what sounds like reprogramming if they find people who have actually received training" that Islamist groups find objectionable, Center for Security Policy president Frank Gaffney told The Daily Caller. Gaffney is co-author of a report, published by the Center, titled Sharia: The Threat to America.

Dwight C. Holton, the U.S. Attorney in Oregon said he had spoken with Holder directly about the issue of the terror training materials. Holton is the federal prosecutor who announced the arrest of so-called "Christmas tree bomber" Mohamed Osman Mohamud in 2010. That announcement made no mention of Mohamud's Muslim faith.

"I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for," Holton said Wednesday. "They will not be tolerated."

Such training materials "pose a significant threat to national security, because they play into the false narrative propagated by terrorists that the United States is at war with Islam," he added. (No! They are at war with the USA and we need to defend ourselves)!!!

"Proper training about violent Islamist extremism is absolutely essential for our law enforcement personnel in order to empower them to identify and understand this grave threat, and then protect the American people from it," the senators wrote. "Part of this training must be an understanding of the clear and profound difference between Islamist extremism, which is a totalitarian political ideology that is at war with us, and Islam, which is a religion practiced by more than a billion people around the world, including millions of law-abiding and loyal Americans."

FBI analyst William Gawthrup is one of several experts on Islam whose training materials arouse the ire of the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups. At the beginning of a videotaped presentation showing one of his training modules, Gawthrup makes exactly the same distinction demanded by Sen. Lieberman. The video was published online in June.

"Understand that what we are going to be doing is (CORRECTLY!) looking at Islam as an ideology, not as a religion," Gawthrup says in the video."What's the difference? Religion is man's relationship to his deity. In the United States, we protect it under the first amendment. We're going to set it aside. We are not going to discuss religion. We are going to discuss Islam as an ideology: "man's relationship to other men.We're going to be discussing that component of Islam that is nonreligious.That component comprises about 83 percent of the ideology. Islam is only about 17 percent religious. The other 83 percent discusses the relationship [of Muslims] with the non-Islamic world."

Now the Obama administration is establishing an advisory panel to vet terror-training materials for law enforcement and the intelligence community "that is comprised of people from the same organizations that are cited as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terror fund-raising trial," according to Gaffney.

Reviewing these decisions at a forum about Sharia on Thursday, former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy said the effort to include such groups as reviewers of training materials would have a "paralyzing" effect on law enforcement.

(EXACTLY WHAT MOSLEM BROTHERHOOD ACTIVISTS OPERATING OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE AND MOSLEM PUPPET OBAMA WANT)

"What you're doing is empowering the worst elements of the American Islamic community, which are the leadership elements linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, and you're selling out the rank and file of American Muslims," McCarthy said. [Not to mention the American non-Muslims.]

Saturday, October 8, 2011

How Obama Got Around Congress Withholding $200 M In Aid To The 'Palestinians'

By Rob Miller

A story in the UK Independent says that the US Congress showed its displeasure with the 'Palestinians' going unilaterally to the UN by withholding $200 million in aid that was supposed to be disbursed to Mahmoud Abbas' little fiefdom by the end of this fiscal year, which ended October 1st.

Being part of the British press and sharing their well known attitude towards Israel, the article is sympathetic to Abbas, referring to him as being 'punished' and inferring that the US Congress is under the thumb of those Evil Zionists, rather than being upset with the 'Palestinians' for allying with Hamas or for abrogating their agreements under two treaties the US is signatory to, the Road Map and The Oslo Accords.

However, there are indications that this was a set up and if my source is correct, both the Obama Administration and the 'Palestinians' were privy to it.

One of my notorious Little Birdies works directly in the 'Palestinian Authority' and we've been correspondents for some time, sort of frenemies, if you get my meaning.

My source had a good laugh at Congresses' action. According to this person, the Obama Administration was aware for some time that the final $200 million might be withheld by Congress and informed the 'Palestinians' in advance. The Obama Administration promised the 'Palestinians' that they would do their best to head this off, but when they couldn't, an arrangement was made with the Saudis to make up the missing $200 million in advance.

That rang a bell...and showed me that as usual, my source was almost certainly correct.

A scant ten days ago, the Saudis gifted Mahmoud Abbas and the 'Palestinians' with the exact sum the US Congress was withholding from them...$200 million.

My source didn't speculate, but knowing how these things work it's almost guaranteed that the Saudis either received the money from the Obama Administration directly to give to the 'Palestinians' or more likely, that the Saudis supplied the cash in exchange for an American quid pro quo somewhere else down the line.

President Obama is going to see to it that the 'Palestinians' receive their jizya no matter what..and a little thing like Congress certainly isn't going to stop him if he can help it.
Rob Miller writes for Joshuapundit. His work has appeared in The Jerusalem Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The San Francisco Chronicle, Andrew Breitbart's Big Peace and other publications.

Sunday, September 25, 2011

SOMALIA'S Al-Qaeda linked rebels said today they have begun moving more than 12,000 starving families back into famine zones they had fled, areas where the UN have warned they will die without help.

Draconian aid restrictions imposed by the extremist Shebab are blamed for turning harsh drought across the Horn of Africa into famine in the areas they control, with 750,000 people at risk of death in coming months, the United Nations warns.

"The mujahedeen fighters, in their bid to help people displaced by drought, started working on plans to send them back home where they will be assisted, God willing," said Sheik Mahad Abu-Safiya, a senior Shebab official.

The families, estimated to number at least 50,000 people, were "taken back to their homes with packages to feed them for three months", he added.

Witnesses said the packages included rice, maize and cooking oil.

However, the Shebab have refused most international assistance, and blocked people fleeing drought and famine in Bay and Bakool regions from travelling in search of aid to Mogadishu, where relief efforts are centered.

Crowded trucks began moving people late on Wednesday from camps in and around the Shebab-held town of Baidoa back to their original villages, up to 50 kilometres southwest of the town, officials and witnesses said.

"The process has started and we have moved the first of the 12,000 displaced families to their original locations", Mohamed Walid, another Shebab official, told reporters.

"Most of the displaced people were moved from a big camp at Baidoa airport, they were taken on long trucks," said witness Osmail Mohamed.

Shebab fighters last month pulled out of positions in the war-torn capital Mogadishu where they were battling the weak Western-backed government but still control swathes of south and central Somalia.

The United Nations has declared six regions in south Somalia famine zones, the majority in Shebab-controlled areas.

Drought, high food prices and fighting in Somalia has increased the number of those in need of humanitarian assistance across the Horn of Africa to 13.3 million, according to the United Nations.

Sunday, September 18, 2011

With the news that "[i]nfiltration of the federal government by members of the radical Muslim Brotherhood is worse than some have warned," it should come as no surprise that while Obama has been courting Muslim Brotherhood operatives, his wife has also gotten into the act.

According to the toolkit site,

"[t]he Let's Move! initiative, started by First Lady Michelle Obama, has an ambitious national goal of addressing the challenge of childhood obesity within a generation, so that children born today reach a healthy adulthood. Let's Move! engages every sector impacting the health of children and provides schools, families, and communities with simple tools to help kids be more active, eat better, and get healthy."

Thus,

"[f]aith-based and neighborhood organizations have a unique and critical role to play in ending childhood obesity and addressing related issues of hunger. Your organizations are trusted leaders in your community, which makes you well-positioned to take action. Children learn many lessons about healthy living and well-being in faith- and community-based settings that set the foundation for their lifestyles as adults.

Let's Move Faith and Communities is designed to help faith-based and neighborhood organizations transform neighborhoods, engage communities, and promote healthy choices."

Consequently, towards the end of July 2011, IRUSA or Islamic Relief USA, "a faith-based disaster relief and development organization, celebrated the inauguration of its Summer Food Service Program ... at the An Nur School in Lanham, Maryland." The White House announced that IRUSA "ha[d] a collaborative partnership with the USDA's Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and that IRUSA ha[d] pledged to host 50 sites as part of a Michelle Obama initiative."

So while an FBI "agent confirmed that at least three operatives of the Egypt-based Brotherhood -- whose credo is 'Jihad is our way and death in the cause of Allah is our dream' -- have penetrated the Obama administration," the First Lady is now dealing with an organization that boasts of such people as Yaser Haddara who is a member of the IRUSA board since 2006 and its chairman until May 2011.

According to the IRUSA's own site, "Dr. Haddara was one of the developers and lead trainers for the Student Leadership Training Program that was jointly sponsored by the Muslim American Society and the Muslim Association of Canada.

Dr. Haddara has been actively involved in several community organizations including the Islamic Society at Stanford University, the Muslim Community Association of the Bay Area, the Islamic Society of North America (Western Region), the Muslim American Society, and the Muslim Association of Canada."

One of the main front organizations of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Society of North America's "leadership does not accept Islamic practices that fall outside the version of Islam propagated by Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood."

Furthermore, in addition to terrorism, ... the Muslim Brotherhood [spreads] political Islam, which weds religion, politics, SOCIETAL RULES, SHARIA LAW AND MILITARY ASPECTS) into a potent force that clashes with pluralistic democracies."

According to the 2007 report entitled Extremism and the Islamic Society of North America, "ISNA is clearly connected to Islamic radicals and terrorist organizations, but it is not simply guilty by association -- its own ideology is marked by extreme social, political, and religious views."

Hence, "ISNA's ideology is its leaders' views of Islam within the context of religion and politics, where they believe in Islamic supremacy" as exemplified in the following statement: "[i]n considering the earth as an arena for Islam, Allah has promised its inheritance to His righteous people, and He has promised that Islam Will prevail over other religions."

So how does one reconcile this with IRUSA's CEO Abed Ayoub who claims that "IRUSA's mission is to alleviate suffering, hunger, illiteracy, and disease regardless of color, race, gender, or creed"?

Also troubling is the point that "[a]ccording to the most influential Islamic authorities, zakat (alms in Arabic) can be given only to Muslims."

So how does this figure in Michelle Obama's outreach program?

Moreover, in January of 2011, Daniel Pipes described how "Islamic 'charities' squander money." He explained how the Islamic Society of North America's Canada branch had engaged in "gross mismanagement" whereby less than one-quarter of monies collected went to the Muslim recipients.

Pipes further explained that "ISNA's management refused to give the auditor all the necessary documents" and thus it was not possible to follow "the trail of funds transferred from ISNA to other organizations[.]" Pipes ends his article by stating that "Islamic 'charities' already have a notorious reputation because of their ties to terrorism; this case shows that they must be watched for more venal problems as well."

Further nefarious associations go to the Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW). IRW has had directors who are linked to the U.K. and European Muslim Brotherhood.

One director was a former minister of religious affairs in the Sudan and also held numerous positions associated with the global Muslim Brotherhood. In 2006 the Israeli government announced "the arrest of an IRW worker for activities related to supporting Hamas." Moreover, "Islamic Relief was one of the founding members of the Union of Good."

According to Steven Merley of the Hudson Institute, "[t]he Union of Good is a coalition of Islamic charities that provides financial support to both the Hamas 'social' infrastructure, as well as its terrorist activities. It is headed by global Muslim Brotherhood leader Youssef Qaradawi, and most of the trustees and member organizations are associated with the global Muslim Brotherhood. The Union of Good was banned by Israel in 2002 and was recently designated a terrorist entity by the United States[.]"

As far back as 2004, Daniel Pipes described the Muslim American Society (MAS) and explained "how it seeks to replace the Constitution with the Koran." Though the MAS "goes about its work quietly; it is none the less dangerous -- and perhaps more so -- for that."

In August 2010, the Muslim Brotherhood-associated "Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations" (CCMO) brought Muslim leaders to attend a special workshop presented by the White House and U.S. government agencies (including Homeland Security) to "provide the groups 'funding, government assistance and resources."

According to a post by Christine Brim at Andrew Breitbart's Big Peace, "the workshop [would] apparently provide special access for these Muslim Brotherhood organizations: the organizers pledge[d] to provide 'direct access' and 'cut through red tape.'

And after the workshop an Iftar dinner (breaking the fast of Ramadan) commenced. The event was announced by the ISNA, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism finance trial."

Notwithstanding the concern about the Muslim Brotherhood connections, Meghan Clyne, editor of National Affairs at the Weekly Standard, asserts that while "[m]uch of what the [Michelle Obama] toolkit recommends is innocuous -- encouraging churches to host kids' intramural sports leagues, for instance. ... several sections illustrate the Obamas' strange understanding of the role of religious communities in America and suggest how, under this president, faith-based offices at the White House and in the agencies have changed their mission and purview."

For Clyne "[m]ost worrisome, ... are the administration's efforts to have congregations place themselves in the service of government as recruiters for the welfare state" ... and "[t]his approach is a marked departure from the original purpose of the White House faith-based initiative. Launched at the outset of President George W. Bush's first term, the initiative was largely intended to allow religious entities to compete on an equal footing with secular ones for grants to deliver social services.

When it came to treating addicts, rehabilitating prisoners, mentoring children, sheltering the homeless, and, yes, feeding the hungry, the Bush administration argued that faith-based organizations often had better records of efficiency and compassion than government programs. But rather than reducing the public's dependence on government-run programs by empowering faith-based organizations, [the Obama] White House seems to view churches, synagogues, and so on as tools to increase reliance on programs designed in Washington."

"They're turning this on its head," said Rev. Richard Land, who handles public policy for the Southern Baptist Convention. The wisdom of the original faith-based initiative -- about which he was initially skeptical, Land explains -- was "to have people who live in a zip code making the decisions about what are the best ways to alleviate the problem in that zip code," rather than being pushed to follow some federal initiative. Under the Obama administration, Land said, "the White House says what your priorities should be."

It appears that political strategists in the White House are mindful of the demographics which "serve the President's electoral interests" in this faith-based program. Moreover, is it ever a good "idea for churches to provide platforms for politicians -- or First Ladies" no matter which political party? And, most troubling, "increased dependence on government [ultimately] services the interests of the party that represents big government," leading us farther down the road to less independence and decision-making.

So here's the mix: greater government interference coupled with possible Muslim Brotherhood influence even though the Muslim Brotherhood "is one of the most dangerous Islamic groups in the world today." Is this a recipe for disaster?

About Me

For many years involved with intelligence and security matters in Iran with significant access at top levels during the rule of the Shah, until early 1979. Currently an Iran SME (subject matter expert), analyst/commentator, and multi-linguist.